Talk:Geneviève Bujold
Her age and how to indent ::::Don't talk nonsense, it's not "ageist", it's a fact of life. I'm not as spry as I was ten years ago, let alone twenty years ago. It's one of these things that we have to deal with. Stop trying to steer this into SJW territory. -RayBell (talk) 13:14, September 11, 2019 (UTC) p.s. Another issue is that Bujold's English is fluent, but has quite a strong accent, which may have been another issue. (There have been jokes about how Picard sounded like an Englishman, but Janeway sounded like a Francophone...) ::::::None of that is relevant to this talk page. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article (in this case, how and where is best to present the information in the article), not for general discussion of the article subject. Also, on Memory Alpha each person who comments in a talk page discussion gets a different indent level: so, as the fifth person to comment in this topic, RayBell should type four colons before each paragraph. More details on how talk pages work here can be found at MA:TALK. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 14:44, September 11, 2019 (UTC) ::::In your opinion! If I didn't consider it relevant, I would not mention it here in the first place. ::::I was not replying to any of the above messages in particular, so I don't need to learn to type four colons. I've only been using Wiki talk pages since the noughties, so I'm clearly a novice, and what does a peasant like me know about these things? But of course, if you have any colonic trouble of your own, I am sure that there certain specialists out there who could help. ;) -RayBell (talk) 13:12, September 12, 2019 (UTC) p.s. Formatting reverted to that which I originally intended. I wasn't actually replying to the previous message in particular. ::::::: or , those are your options. You're also clearly replying to the topic, and you are a novice here, which is the only place that matters as far as this is concerned. You could have create a subsection or a new section and reset the indentations, or even better, don't use talk pages for comments that are irrelevant to the subject and topic. :::::::While I'm here though, merge this back to where it belongs. - 15:57, September 12, 2019 (UTC) ::::As previously stated there ' was no need' for the text to be indented, since I was replying to the original message and NOT Gvsualan/Alan. I have already explained all this at least twice. I reset the indentation, because I was making a new point, and there was no need for my comment to be squashed into the right hand side of the page. Like this one! If I did not consider my comments relevant then I would not have made them, and one person's disagreement with that does not change that. ::::I have had one poster just accuse me of being an ageist bigot (rather than stating the obvious fact that age affects us all in terms of fitness - something which Bujold herself hinted at in her recorded comments). Then I have another one come along and tell me my comments were not relevant before making condescending comments instructing me to indent as if I was replying to Gvsualan (which I wasn't). Oh and by the way, I am not a "novice" to this. That doesn't mean that I don't make the occasional mistake, but there are other people around here that seem to as well.-RayBell (talk) 19:53, September 12, 2019 (UTC) p.s. I prefer to stick to editing pages and creating content in peace if this is the kind of thing talk pages on here have to offer. This has already taken out of my time to do that. ::::::::RayBell, the relevant point on indentation that Archduk3 was making above when he said to is this (from the help page): ::::::::* Indent posts for organization. The first contributor to a talk page should have no indentation in the message. The next person starts their message with one colon (:), and the third person uses two colons (::), and so on. If the first person replies to the message again, he or she uses the same indentation for their subsequent messages as for the first message. This method helps distinguish who is saying what. ::::::::Thus, *all* of your posts in this thread should begin with four colons (::::) no matter which comment you're replying to. This convention may very well be unique to MA, but it's the format that's been used here for many years. Also, the comment about relevance was in regards to what does and doesn't belong on an article's talk page. The comment was "Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article (in this case, how and where is best to present the information in the article), not for general discussion of the article subject." In this case, the poster was referencing the tangential discussion regarding Bujold's age, etc., which was digressing from the original discussion about whether to keep the page or not. -- Renegade54 (talk) 21:22, September 12, 2019 (UTC) ::::I don't know of anywhere else that operates in that fashion. If B replies to A, then B indents, and if C replies to B then there is a double indent, but should C wish to reply to A rather than B, then they would use a single indent, and so on. The result of not doing this is that the text ends up squashed into a dangling noodle along the right hand side of the page. Which we now have (at least on this browser). ::::As previously stated, repeatedly, I considered my comments to be relevant to the article, and how to improve it. If you disagree with my comments about Ms Bujold, that is your personal opinion, just as mine is mine. If you don't appreciate my remarks or attempts at humour, that is also a difference between individuals, not a definitive statement. I do not have to automatically follow your opinion anymore than you have to follow mine. ::::If people didn't understand my points above the first, second or third time round, I doubt they will do so on the fourth. I have nothing more to say on this matter.-RayBell (talk) 17:00, September 13, 2019 (UTC) ::::::::Bottom line, it really doesn't matter if you know of anywhere else that operates this way (I did mention MA *may* be unique in this), or if you agree with our formatting standards. And my attempt at elucidation about the Bujold discussion had nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with *your* comments, only about what does and doesn't belong on an article talk page and what Josiah Rowe was getting at. You're either being deliberately obtuse or incapable of understanding what we're saying here. Please read the help topic(s) referenced above, and either adhere to our standards or don't post or edit here. It's that simple. -- Renegade54 (talk) 18:21, September 13, 2019 (UTC) ::::::Yep. I was just saying that discussions of Bujold’s age and accent don’t belong on this page, unless you were arguing that the article should contain some mention of them. (Which I don’t think you were; though if you were, I would say that neither merits inclusion in the article, unless you can find some other noteworthy source mentioning them.) ::::::If you still want to have a discussion about subjects like that, as opposed to discussions of what should be in this article, try here... after your block ends. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 18:44, September 13, 2019 (UTC) Standalone page I have taken the initiative of restarting her page. It appears that a shot of Bujold's hands remained in the final cut of Caretaker, just before Voyager was hit by the distortion. A comparison can be seen in this video: https://youtu.be/sbl3cGQ5vxI?t=185 In light of the fact that Bujold's hands are used in a clip that aired in the final cut, I think Bujold is a Trek performer in her own right, and therefor merits her own page. Lastly, I would also point out that we have a page for Trisha Burton who also appeared only as a hand-double for Janeway. --- Jaz 22:21, February 19, 2019 (UTC) : So original research from a youtube video is the citation for this? --Alan (talk) 22:38, February 19, 2019 (UTC) ::I'd submit that, in this case, the evidence is inconclusive. Firstly, the creator of the YT video even admits himself it's "just a possibility" that these were Bujold's hands. Secondly, the Bujold material in the YT video comes from The First Captain: Bujold, which specifically refers to the footage as an amalgamation of what was shot with Bujold together with "a rough cut of 'Caretaker'." It's entirely possible that that "rough cut" included Mulgrew rather than Bujold, so it might be Mulgrew's hands in the close-ups. In fact, for all we know, the close-ups may have been shot with a separate hand performer. Actually, given the insert nature of these shots as well as the fact Bujold was notoriously difficult to work with, I personally would guess at the latter possibility, but even that's speculation. Why? Because all we can conclude about the identity of whose hands these are is that we don't know. --Defiant (talk) 22:59, February 27, 2019 (UTC) :::I concur with Defiant in regard to the "hand" issue...However, and that being said, I also agree with Bujold – she being somewhat of a case apart – having her own stand-alone (production POV) page. Why? Returning her to the "Performers considered for a Star Trek role" article is not the right place for her either. She was not only considered, but also signed/''contracted'' for the role, having actually already shot (and thus being paid for) some of her scenes after VOY had started production, as is properly documented elsewhere. IMHO the signed and being paid status are the operative requisites in this case, indicative of the "consideration" stage being over. That she was found wanting afterwards, is another cup of tea entirely as I see it. She is a bonafide part of official Star Trek production history after all. My two cents...--Sennim (talk) 15:07, March 10, 2019 (UTC) :She's hardly the first or last that those statements reflect. What of every actor who had a deleted scene, for example? They don't qualify, and they're contribution is much greater than hers, being just a flip of a coin decision away from being reinserted into future re-releases into canon-dom (look at the various Director Vuts of films or extended scenes added to TNG-R.) Bujold will forever be in a no-mans-land of ever possibly being inserted into VOY-R.--Alan (talk) 18:25, March 10, 2019 (UTC) ::::This article is worth keeping IMHO... however, it is interesting that Bujold is some years older than Mulgrew, which may not have worked in her favour in terms of action scenes and longevity of the series. -RayBell (talk) 21:49, September 10, 2019 (UTC) :::::Quasi-ageist rubbish; what matters is, if there's proof it was her hand, it stays; if it's in question tremulously keep it in with "Performers considered" very close on hand, as it were. I don't look at it in any other way.--Archer4real (talk) 09:03, September 11, 2019 (UTC) ::Moving this discussion back to a more relevant course, perhaps we should move the info here to VOY performers whose scenes were cut? --Defiant (talk) 06:48, September 14, 2019 (UTC) :::::: Keep The Article :::::: It looks like I am the only person to recommend in favor of Genevieve Bujold's own article as well as giving Nicole Janeway an article. :::::: However, I also think the Hand Double photo and text establishing Bujold as the hand double should be deleted from the article unless there is information proving that it is Bujold. I agree with whoever else posted that it is very unlikely it is Bujold. It is the same footage in both versions of the pilot, but the hand double could be anybody. Is there any information at all about the Paramount Production Procedures For Hand Doubles? :::::: I also am providing feedback that Memory Alpha would be easier to read if more cast, crew, and characters would get their own separate articles instead of reading very long lists crammed into the same article. I doubt you agree, as I suggested the musicians hired to work on Star Trek should be included in the episode articles but nobody agreed. :::::: The Bujold article has an alert that the information might be inaccurate. If there is no accurate information left in the article, perhaps her article should be merged. :::::: Will the talk page, the discussion about this, remain? :::::: All of these paragraphs are mine. I spaced them out hoping they will be easier for you to read. :::::: In Correct (talk) 19:36, November 24, 2019 (UTC) : While I agree that MA would be better off with more pages than less, there is no evidence to support this article as a standalone. Also, while I suppose to an extent VOY performers whose scenes were cut, one could argue that such an individual could theoretically be reinserted into a future "director's cut-type scenario, whereas her appearances cannot, when in reality, she was one of the Performers considered for VOY roles, who didn't make the cut (hence, "considered"). --Alan (talk) 19:00, December 3, 2019 (UTC) :::::::Except that she wasn’t just "considered", in the way that Karen Austin or Lindsay Wagner were; she was cast, and filmed. It was only after a day and a half of filming that she quit (or was fired, depending on which version of the story you prefer). That puts her in a unique position, and I think one that we could make an exception for. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 21:58, December 3, 2019 (UTC) : She was eliminated. Her character was scrubbed. She was considered and found not to be a good fit. Her scenes weren't simply deleted for content or time. There is no usable footage. Another David Rappaport for a different reason. --Alan (talk) 22:40, December 3, 2019 (UTC) :::::::To my ear, "considered" implies "not chosen." Bujold was chosen, cast, and withdrew after filming had begun. Although the outcome is the same in terms of what made it to screen, it’s not the same as someone who was considered for a role but never cast. :::::::To put it another way, consider the case of Walter Mosley. We do not know whether any of his contributions to the Star Trek: Discovery will make it to screen. But when I asked at Forum:Walter Mosley, Archduk3 said, "Anyone who has worked on a Star Trek production in a verifiable manner should have an article." Is he wrong? How is Bujold (or Rappaport, for that matter) any different from Mosley? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 01:21, December 4, 2019 (UTC)